Live data from Hacker News

Average Rent in San Francisco Has Dropped $1k This Year

socketsite.com

461–470 of 562 posts

Re: Average Rent in San Francisco Has Dropped $1k This Year

#461
post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The idea that Prop 13 protects people from being taxed out of their hugely inflating financial asset is somewhat preposterous on its face. It mostly protects large landholders, and gives a tiny tiny benefit to the people that we are concerned about. When you say "large landholders", are you talking about REITs and commercial property holders? If so, wouldn't Prop 15 have addressed these issues? https://en.wikipedia…

Anybody who owns more than a home, including "small" landlords. If you look at land distribution in cities, you'll find lots of super wealthy families, hidden behind LLCs, and a few REITs, the smaller scale landlords, and then finally individual homeowners. Those wealthy land hoarding families are often worse than REITs for cities, in that maintaining their own political power is more important than profits, and that…

Thanks. I had briefly thought "what if we just tax second homes at market rate?" But quickly realized the loophole of creating a company/trust per property.

Have you come across any good articles showing the breakdown of land ownership in SF?

Re: Average Rent in San Francisco Has Dropped $1k This Year

#462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another data point. Tried to get a discount in our Inner Sunset 1BR that we paid $3250 for. Other units in the same building listed for the past few months for $2700 with 2 months free (effectively $2250). Denied a decrease (citing CA Fair Housing and not giving anyone a decrease) so we paid 1 months rent to break the lease. Now living in a 2BR by the beach for the same price as before with 50% more space, W/D, garag…

Wow! Some places would charge you a month's rent for each month that they couldn't fill the apartment when you break lease!

It all depends on supply and demand.

If you have 6-8 months left in your lease, and they do not have demand, they got you locked in so their incentive is less. They do not have demand so obviously the unit you vacate will also sit for a few weeks at least so you need to pay. That's the contract.

If you have 2 months left, they know you are high risk to move out so they will throw discounts to avoid yet another vacancy.

Re: Average Rent in San Francisco Has Dropped $1k This Year

#463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless the lease had other terms written in, California generally allows landlords to continue to charge rent until the unit is rented again (or the end of the lease term).

I had a 1 month lease penalty clause. I thought it was pretty standard.

The last time I moved, I had 2 months OR rent responsible till end of lease (or until they lease it again). It depends. I picked "rent responsible" per their friendly advise and paid 5 days of extra rent since they could clean and re-rent that fast (this was 2018).

Re: Average Rent in San Francisco Has Dropped $1k This Year

#464
post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That depends whether you're a politician or an economist. ;-) Through a politician's lens the goal of a tax is to raise revenue for government and tax policy exists to do that efficiently. Through an economist's lens efficient trade and alignment of incentives are fundamental and governments exist only incidentally to ensure those. There are various schools of economics that suggest limiting government's role only to…

You missed out an important perspective that is neither purely politician nor purely economist: taxpayer. Taxes are paid on money earned, whether through labors, investments or rents. They are a taking, a legal one, of something that rightfully belongs to someone else, so if you are going to take it, then it had better go back to government services. Economists have found ways to reinterpret taxes and exploit their s…

> [taxes] are a taking, a legal one, of something that rightfully belongs to someone else

IMO a LVT holds up (relatively) well under this sort of moral reasoning. I'm sure many arguments can be made around what's fair, but it's intuitive that income from labor, investments, etc should naturally go to who performs the labor, who makes the investments etc.

The (unimproved) land itself is a bit different. It can't go to who created the land, since no one did. In the US, the closest thing is maybe who first took it from the Native Americans. The moral argument for strong property rights (on the land without improvements) to begin with seems weaker than the other cases, since there's no contribution to society tied to making the land (of course switching from one tax regime to another is another matter, since people certainly buy land that is valuable under our current system with their hard-earned money).

That also leads to its (relatively) small effects on incentives for a tax. Taxes on labor and investment income of course discourage labor and investment, but the amount of land does not decrease no matter how much it is taxed. Even a huge tax probably does not affect the monthly payments to use land very much (since the supply and demand still remain similar), it would probably just lead to lower land values and more of the monthly payment going to taxes instead of interest.

> Now the reason I bring this up is because if a tax were enacted for the express purpose of shaping public behavior and the resulting revenue was greater than what the government needed, what ought to be done with the surplus revenue?

I think this is an interesting question especially with things like carbon taxes being considered seriously. It seems like two natural things to do would be to either reduce other harmful taxes that exist only to raise revenue, or to distribute the funds to everyone equally. I could see an argument for the latter if the incentive-shaping tax was something that would raise living expenses for most people (for example, a carbon tax that increases electricity costs), since otherwise it would negatively affect people living off savings or others with low incomes.

Re: Average Rent in San Francisco Has Dropped $1k This Year

#465
post #419
post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you expand on this? Did CT follow Oakland, where SF is NYC? Or if CT is SF, where is the corresponding Oakland? I live in NYC, and my view of CT is that its modern identity is dominated by being a suburb to NYC, with a handful of big and old businesses in the big cities to keep domestic economy afloat. The places in my mind that don't fit this model are all east of New Haven, at which point CT starts to be "Coast…

During the suburban expansion of the last century many southern CT towns allowed in businesses but declined to expand housing and transit availability. This combined with strong NIMBYism drove up housing prices in southern CT. A good modern analogue of southern CT from the 70s-90s would be the valley in the bay area e.g. Palo Alto, Mountain View etc.

Not disagreeing with you but some additional points:

I don't think CT's housing issues are anywhere remotely as bad as the Bay area. Stamford is the tier 1 city in CT IMHO, which seemed kind of lame. i.e. we would have friends in places further east (almost as far as New Haven) who would come to Stamford for the "scene". I use quotes because the scene in Stamford was pretty muted. We (who lived in Stamford) would drive to Manhattan for our weekends and special weeknights. I thought it worked really well for us. For 2400 a month, we were living in Luxury apartments and life was car friendly. Housing didn't seem too overpriced (starter homes were 600K IIRC). IMO, Stamford was pretty neat a few years back .. not sure if it has changed.

Bay area housing just went stupid until the pandemic hit. I moved out and so did many people I know. It was just not "affordable" on a 200K salary if you have multiple kids and a stay at home spouse. The housing you could get for $2400 was terrible in most parts that were reasonable commuting distance. I also would take metro north over caltrain any day.

Taxes are bad in both places. Stamford seemed more affordable and a lot better culture to me. I love the Bay area but can't make the math work :(

Re: Average Rent in San Francisco Has Dropped $1k This Year

#466
post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Housing is expensive in the city and some nearby suburbs ( mostly to the west and southwest), but less so the further away you are. Thanks to the RER train system even far away suburbs, with cheap or cheapish housing aren't that far away - e.g. i have colleagues with houses ( with big yards and two stories) in the 200k euros range south of Paris, in fancy-ish suburbs, and are 40-50 minutes from the office ( i live in…

Thanks for the input. Can you please tell me which are those suburbs with 200k homes outside of Paris? I'd definitely move there at that price, sounds like a steal. Though I'm a bit skeptical as 200k is enough for a house in Eastern Europe on the outskirts of Bucharest, but in Austria where I am now and average house outside of Vienna is way over 600K so the Paris suburbs you describe seem suspiciously cheap to me at…

Here is a 230k EUR house just 1h20m outside Paris: https://www.green-acres.fr/en/properties/13050a-340936848565...

Re: Average Rent in San Francisco Has Dropped $1k This Year

#467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems the average Big Mac meal is $6 these days. It provides approximately 1,000 calories, and the average person needs approximately 2,000 per day, so we'll assume you'll need to order two. That puts the food costs at $12 per person. The average cost to install a kitchen is around $60,000. If we assume a rate of return of 5%, that is $3,000 per year right there that the money needs to provide to justify it being…

>But at the other end, non-fast food restaurants focus on providing entertainment. Could you expand on this? I have no idea what you mean. Aside from some niche restaurants like Benihana, I can't think of any sit down restaurant at any price point that provides any more entertainment than McDonalds.

Maybe staring at the tchotchkes on the wall?

Re: Average Rent in San Francisco Has Dropped $1k This Year

#468
post #301
post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think SF has already taken the hint that they can outsource their residents to Oakland. Residents strain the city budget via things like public schools. Businesses put money into the city budget via gross receipts taxes. SF wants the businesses but is very happy for residents to live elsewhere.

CT went this way as well, eventually the businesses look to follow residents - particularly younger residents who can't afford the inflated rent or down payments.

I grew up in southeastern CT and visit there occasionally. It's hard to describe how dead it is for commercial software development, even compared to Boston.

Even if one was inclined to open a good software shop in CT, you'd have neither low property prices nor an existing pool of highly skilled labor.

Re: Average Rent in San Francisco Has Dropped $1k This Year

#469
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stop it. Do you live in San Francisco? I don’t mean the Bay Area. Do you actually live in San Francisco? Why did Vancouver, Seattle, and Portland see very similar percentage based increases at the same time? Why has the entire Bay Area? Foreign investment. As soon as Vancouver passed legislation to curb foreign investment their real estate moved back to normal. 1 in 4 housing purchases in California are all cash. Tha…

What? Vancouver’s prices are still rising. Foreign investment is demand. A rise in demand is much more impactful if supply is static.

Do they also invest a lot in other parts of Canada?

Re: Average Rent in San Francisco Has Dropped $1k This Year

#470
post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're absolutely right - a property tax is a type of wealth tax. I completely agree, which is why I attempted to differentiate between a general-purpose tax on all wealth in any form and a tax on real property. Please accept my humble apologies for my failures to be less clear than I could have been - my communication skills are a work in progress. With that said, I have been under the impression that countries that…

I don't think you're wrong. There's easy parts (ie. publicly traded equities) and hard parts (eg. art collections). I've been skeptical of skepticism (lol) of the wealth tax mostly because the easy parts dominate the hard parts. Most wealth is in the easily identifiable areas (ie. equities and property) not the hard areas. Even with private companies like some startup, surely the shares have some known valuation righ…

You could use (sic) instead of (lol)
Post reply on HN